75 Comments - ArchPundit - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 12:35 pm: === This might actually zoom through if existing Illinois professional sports teams were specifically excluded /s. It’s a bit tougher to write into law, but simple relocation within the state should be excluded. I also understand the problem of a company that may need to expand to a new location and is competing with other states, but if there is a way to do it without crippling the legislation, the state shouldn’t be competing against itself. But yeah, professional sports teams that exist, especially football, should be excluded. Football won’t take the name away and is there anyone who wouldn’t mind a new franchise without the McCaskeys? - naperthrill - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 12:39 pm: arlington heights - Jerry - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 12:41 pm: The Bears pay for the new house in suburbs themselves. No need for Welfare from the guv’mint. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 12:41 pm: Should be sent to Rules to die. ===But Illinois isn’t competing with other states for the Bears. Chicago is competing with Naperville.=== The Bears need, want to stay, there’s no “second choice”, there’s zero credibility to a move or shared market, and with “no debt”, a $5.6+ billion asset with guaranteed revenues to meet expenses (and then some) before any ticket, before any merchandise, before any local advertising is bought… before any game is even played. The NFL ensures the solvency of all 32 franchises because as a league it’s a necessity for the overall brand. The financial aspects are “simple”… the Bears can get a loan, the NFL as an entity can back the loan, and the land is already bought. Of all professional franchises in this market, a football franchise has the safest monetary existence as the league ensures that by its own rules and standards… Send it to Rules, let it die. The Bears will magically find they can afford to build. - DuPage Saint - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 12:41 pm: So developers pay more in taxes than current site generates but less than what they would if assessed under current law? And do you mean Chicago compete with Arlington Heights not Naperville? - Dysfunction Junction - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 12:43 pm: =arlington heights = Forget it, he’s rolling. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 12:44 pm: ===Forget it, he’s rolling. === Corrected. But I stand by my earlier claim that the Germans attacked Pearl Harbor. - Jibba - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 12:45 pm: ==but that would not occur without the PILOT incentive.== I’m willing to roll the dice and find out. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 12:47 pm: Naperville, Arlington Heights, it’s all Chicago… - Rabid - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 12:47 pm: didn’t need ny help buying it, don’t need any help paying taxes - JoeMaddon - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 12:55 pm: It would be funny if the Bears did a lot of the heavy lifting on this, but then at the end the GOA carved out developments for corporations moving within the state. - Telly - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 12:55 pm: == Chicago is competing with (Arlington Heights) == That’s the whole ball game. How do they get the votes? My quick count shows there are 29 Representatives and 15 Senators from Chicago and roughly a dozen other GA members who live in the burbs but represent chunks of Chicago. How do any of those members essentially vote to move a prominent business out of a town they represent? And let’s face it, nothing this big and controversial, no matter the subject, gets through the legislature without several “safe” Chicago Dems on the roll. - Jerry - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 1:01 pm: How about if the Bears payback the $640,000,000.00 Home Equity loan on the last home improvement? - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 1:02 pm: === And let’s face it, nothing this big and controversial, no matter the subject, gets through the legislature without several “safe” Chicago Dems on the roll.=== (Sigh) Sure. The problem is Republicans who constantly complain about “choosing winners and losers” with subsidies, want no “taxpayer” monies to businesses, but now want to help a “business” that has as its business model “collect television rights money in March” as its revenue stream to begin its profits before producing its “product” It’s like “Lucky Pierre” complaining about the state being in crushing debt or near financial “ruin”, but if the Bears need some sort of incentive to effectively “do exactly the only thing they can or want to do, stay”… … and you’re worried about Democrats? - Give Us Barabbas - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 1:04 pm: If someone tells me that they want to use an accounting trick to pay more than they would in conventional taxes, so they will never need to pay taxes… Color me suspicious. - Noggin - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 1:07 pm: So what if the PILOT doesn’t pass in Springfield? Is the Arlington Heights stadium dead? - OneMan - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 1:10 pm: This has a little bit of a few like something Disney tried years ago. They wanted to host a big event to support and recognize excellent college students in all sorts of areas from the arts to student government. And oh yeah, they would also host a college football championship as part of it - Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 1:16 pm: Whatever we do don’t learn from the successful public/ private partnerships other states that have world class stadiums and the events that go with them have done Good luck to those Democratic legislators who vote no on this massive project explaining that to your friends in organized labor - Telly - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 1:16 pm: OW, I’m not worried or complaining about anything. Just making observations about the roll call and how tight of a needle the Bears will have to thread on this. As you would say, 60-30-1. With respect. - OneOpinion - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 1:16 pm: Any break on property taxes for one gets passed on to the rest — the nature of the property tax system. The levy represents the total to be collected, and that doesn’t change — breaks for favored property tax payers are made up by the rest. Last I checked, the Bears development bring more school children … so the expense side increases while the revenue from this favored taxpayer diminishes … meaning a double hit. Am I missing something? - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 1:18 pm: === So what if the PILOT doesn’t pass in Springfield? Is the Arlington Heights stadium dead?=== The Bears are building a building in Arlington Heights. How much they are, or want to be, on the hook for its cost is this bill. Here a lil thing to think about; The Chargers franchise, originally from Los Angeles, for years fought San Diego to get a new building. The threat was to move, even back to Los Angeles. No dice. The locals weren’t budging. Sharing the Los Angeles market with the Rams franchise, while also having the San Diego viewers (and old fans) was an option that made sense, and cents to the NFL, going from zero Los Angeles presence to both conferences having Los Angeles in its portfolio. This league doesn’t want, this franchise doesn’t want, a Bears franchise in… well, anywhere but “Chicagoland” It’s gonna be built. It’s the dollar amount, liabilities, and Chicago Park District fallout left to quibble - DHS Drone - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 1:19 pm: To be fair to Rich, I bet a lot of the Bears fans who’d love to see them move to Arlington Heights, live in Naperville. - Excitable Boy - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 1:20 pm: - Todd Maisch said the chamber is “highly inclined to be in favor of the legislation,” - I dunno, Todd, I think the McCaskeys should just “Hang in there”. - Jerry - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 1:21 pm: As was pointed out in a previous Bears thread. Aaron Rogers “owns” the Bears, can he pay? - Homebody - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 1:26 pm: No giveaways to billionaires. None. Period. Stop it. The NFL and the Bears need Chicagoland more than Chicagoland needs them. Los Angeles just ignored the NFL for years until they moved two teams back there. - Pundent - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 1:27 pm: The Bears have no leverage here. Their desire in moving to Arlington Heights is rooted in making a very profitable business even more profitable. If the stadium doesn’t get built (it will) they’ll keep playing at Soldier Field. Those are the two options. And really there’s only one because it’s far more lucrative for the Bears to own their own stadium. There’s no reason for the taxpayers to subsidize what is and will be a very profitable business. This falls in the category of “it never hurts to ask.” - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 1:29 pm: === Whatever we do don’t learn from the successful public/ private partnerships other states that have world class stadiums and the events that go with them have done=== - LP - We have crushing debt, huge pension liability. It would be fiscally unsound to spend or ease things with “taxpayers” eating so much with corrupt politics and you trusting Democrats and *Organized Labor*, labor you say often should lack collective bargaining and prevailing wages… How are you not wholly against such an egregious use of the public trust for a company that first can well afford building such a facility and last is in no great position to move from the media market it resides. Do I need to pull more of your quotes about “picking winners and losers” as well? The Bears are a winner as a cash cow that can afford to build this facility - Nick - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 1:29 pm: Compromise idea: we pass this bill but exempt the bears specifically from benefiting from it. - Cool Papa Bell - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 1:34 pm: No thanks to helping anyone move from one spot in Illinois to another. Enough NFL Stadiums have been backed with private money that the Bears can do the same. And I’ll stand corrected but the Cubs have done most of the upgrades at Wrigley Field without direct tax dollars. The Bears are only going to move within the state. They won’t move to Gary or Kenosha. As owners of a billion dollar business let them figure out the financial aspect. - Southside Markie - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 1:36 pm: Not sure the bill would mean anything for the Bears even if it passes. The bill appears to have the “but for” requirement that is typical of most tax incentive laws, i.e., that but for the provision of the incentive, the project would not happen. OW has pointed out all the reasons why the “but for” requirement will not be fulfilled. At the very least, even with the bill, it’s a lawsuit waiting to happen and one that may tie the project up for quite a while. - Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 1:57 pm: Enough NFL stadiums have been built without any public private partnership? Only 3 NFL stadiums have ever been built without any taxpayer funding. Do the fans in the Chicago area want to be added to the Super Bowl and a Final 4 rotation and also attract the World Cup or don’t they? https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2022/03/31/nfl-stadiums-taxpayer-funded-buffalo-bills/7217852001/ - Anon E Moose - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 1:59 pm: Same deal as the Cubs. No public funds. - Hannibal Lecter - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 2:01 pm: The Bears just hired a team President who said his top priority is to make this new stadium happen. I doubt that this legislation will have any impact on the move to AH. - Roman - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 2:01 pm: == And there are a lot more Chicago legislators than Arlington Heights legislators. == And the legislators who represent Arlington Heights, Rep Walker and Senator Gillespie, are on the record as being opposed to this kind of public support for the stadium. So who will actually be for this? - Lakeview Lou - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 2:02 pm: Counter offer: not a penny and Chicago aggressively pursues an expansion AFC team to play at Solider Field. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 2:03 pm: === Only 3 NFL stadiums=== It’s been done. Three times. If it’s already been done, the Bears franchise can be the 4th. - Lucky Pierre -, we have a huge pension crisis weighing heavily on Illinois, according to you Illinois hasn’t had a balanced budget in decades, and your concern with corruption with Democrats, and your belief that organized labor is bad for Illinois… … let the McCaskeys show Illinois, that a prosperous business as no need or desire to lock arms with such corruption, has no want to hurt Illinois as it can’t balance budgets and carries crippling debt. The McCaskeys should run a business like a business and tell “government” stay out of our way. You still want your quotes back at ya? You should be against this. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 2:05 pm: === Counter offer: not a penny and Chicago aggressively pursues an expansion AFC team to play at Solider Field.=== That’s as weak as the Bears saying they’d move. Both the NFL and the Bears would veto such a move by any existing or new franchise - DuPage - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 2:06 pm: I can see both sides of this. After all, most of the property taxes go to K-12 schools. This huge project isn’t going to be adding to the expenses of schools because they will not be bringing more kids into the schools. New houses and apartments would be bringing in more kids to the local schools. The stadium should not get off for free, but I could see a reduction in taxes being fair in this type of situation. - Just Me 2 - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 2:13 pm: Can someone please remind me of the billions of dollars in subsidies the Ricketts family gets to stay in Chicago and redevelop the area around Wrigley Field? Or the Bulls? Or Blackhawks? Or White Sox? Oh wait. Hard no. - Just Me 2 - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 2:15 pm: Jerry at 1:01 pm has it. - Ares - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 2:17 pm: Perhaps one should ask how the nearby incentive package to Sears turned out over the long run. If one recalls, a similar scenario played out when Sears was lured from its iconic Sears Tower to Hoffman Estates. Public Act 97-0636 was passed in December, 2011, to extend subsidies, and keep Sears there. The impact at the time was estimated $250-$300 million / year. How did that deal turn out in the end, and was it worth the heavy subsidies to delay the decline of a troubled company? Might the Sears subsidy have been better invested in shoring up Illinois’ educational system? - Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 2:24 pm: OW tells organized labor to pound sand. First time for everything. Do you think the Mc Caskeys have 5 billion liquid in the bank to build a state of the art stadium like the owner of the Rams did that has two NFL teams playing in it? The stadium will get built, with plenty of assistance on infrastructure etc. like every other project of this size gets This is 20 years too late but better late than never - Local AH Voter - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 2:28 pm: Rep. Canty, not Rep. Walker has Arlington Park along with Sen. Gillespie. This will be a fun dance. - Amalia - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 2:36 pm: Yeah. No. I’m betting if I looked at the projections for the costs and returns over the years without any public kind of financing that they would be making a boatload of money, for each of the family members. It’s not just the stadium, it’s a bunch of other things around it. It’s not just the games, or the Super Bowl, it’s other entertainment activities (see Northwestern with their adventure that is privately financed but they want concerts. Bears would attract larger ones.) And hotels. and restaurants. $$$$ Nope. - Cool Papa Bell - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 2:37 pm: === Only 3 NFL stadiums=== Fun with numbers. 13 NFL Stadiums have opened since 2002. Three of those took zero public dollars. 23% of all stadiums built in the past 20 odd years is not nothing. Let’s see to it that we make it four. And to the Super Bowl and Final Fours? The Bears would get 1 Super Bowl and that its and maybe two Final Fours in 20 years. Lots of money for maybe 3 events over two decades. And the World Cup isn’t coming back to the US after 2026 for another 20 years. So I’m not holding my breath for all those big events to land in Arlington Heights. - The Captain - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 2:43 pm: From the story: “The draft of a bill that potentially would entitle the Chicago Bears to millions of dollars in subsidies for their proposed new Arlington Heights stadium complex has surfaced in Springfield—and there are signs it has begun to pick up significant backing.” Significant backing, wow. Also from the story: “No sponsor yet has been selected for the bill, but it’s believed the Bears have run it by top legislative leaders.” Sounds like this runaway freight train is all but wrapped up. - Cool Papa Bell - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 2:44 pm: =3 NFL Stadiums= BTW - Those 3 were built in Massachusetts, New Jersey and California. All blue states. Good on those local and state leaders to say no. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 2:56 pm: Oh - LP - LOL…. === tells organized labor to pound sand. First time for everything.=== The Chicago Bears, as an organization will used union labor, in “Chicagoland”, there’s no need to incentivize that. That’s silly. === Do you think the Mc Caskeys have 5 billion liquid in the bank to build a state of the art stadium=== To have your child-like wonderment… or be such a gaslighter, lol The Bears are always going to borrow monies to build, the NFL will back the note with the television revenues as collateral, and likely can get $3 billion in a line of credit, if needed, on a signature. Plus, what, you wait till you had enough cash to by your house, outright? You’re a child, and dishonest to any conversation, let alone a true hypocrite to yourself and words… which I’ll show you… you let me know. === The stadium will get built, with plenty of assistance on infrastructure etc. like every other project of this size gets=== 60/30 signature… and what republicans will vote for such a project with the high debt and Illinois never passing a balanced budget… amirite? You agree… you do. Not one dime. Not one. Off-ramps, infrastructure to and from to help AH, but the Bears can easily afford this, on a signature, and get $100 million plus with an immediate “naming rights deal” for 10 years… it’s the Bears after all. Go peddle your phony persona with the Bears, - LP -, you are arguing against your caricature - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 2:57 pm: ===Sounds like this runaway freight train is all but wrapped up. === That made me chuckle. - Lakeview Lou - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 2:59 pm: ===That’s as weak as the Bears saying they’d move. Both the NFL and the Bears would veto such a move by any existing or new franchise=== I humbly disagree. Chicago’s media market is 5 times the size of Jacksonville’s and twice the size of any media market in American without a NFL team. It’s a through process to relocate but if 3/4 of the owners agree a team can move. And I am sure the owners could figure out a way around any veto the Bears would attempt to use. All the NFL teams split revenue and a second NFL team in Chicago would generate more money then Jacksonville any other city currently without an NFL franchise. If the NFL can make a ton of money with a second NFL in Chicago they will make it happen. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 3:05 pm: === And I am sure the owners could figure out a way around any veto the Bears would attempt to use.=== To share a Chicago market, when the markets the NFL want are “Europe” or “Mexico” Doubtful. It’s not even realistic to compare Jacksonville, as they as a franchise have been “assured” if a franchise were to move it’d be Jacksonville and it’d be to London Think on this… you’re saying the NFL would collude with a city… against a franchisee? You don’t understand the NFL. The NFL leverages cities, not franchises - Save Ferris - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 3:16 pm: This sounds like a back door 6b. So long as the municipality and the state aren’t seeing the taxes be lower than what Arlington Park paid, so long as the various other taxing bodies aren’t seeing a decline, and so long as it sunsets, I don’t see the problem with this. Unlike the Comiskey/Soldier Field fiasco, there are no taxpayer supported bonds with this, correct? It’s just how much in new taxes will the Bears pay, right? And if they build a successful shops/restaurants side area that’s open 365 days a year, there’s sales tax to consider. Doesn’t sound that those would be reduced. Seems OK to me, but more details needed. - Jerry - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 3:17 pm: If the Bears don’t have $5,000,000,000.00 stuffed under a mattress somewhere to pay for the house on the land they are buying, that’s their problem. - Save Ferris - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 3:19 pm: I will add that the municipality will benefit from full absorption of all 327 acres on day 1 instead of the parcel being broken up and developed over, say, 20 years. A long term development would delay funding of the various taxing bodies, possibly reducing their funding by amounts that could exceed what the PILOT would grant. Again, a lot more details needed. - Pundent - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 3:20 pm: There is absolutely no desire to put another NFL team in the Chicago market. It’s addition by subtraction. And the NFL has been very transparent on where they see future growth opportunities. - hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 3:22 pm: Vote down, Chicago Bears… - hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 3:24 pm: @SaveFerris - The Bears don’t have any leverage here. They have nowhere else to go. No reason to give them any tax breaks at all. - levivotedforjudy - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 3:28 pm: Everyone is looking at the stadium and seeing the McCaskey family in their heads on this. The track closed in 2021 (and horseracing was subsidized in IL). I think that whoever was going to do whatever to redevelop the site and surrounding area was going to want some sort of incentive and this complex could be huge in terms of job generation, sales and entertainment taxes, etc… But most Bears fans cannot envision giving Papa Bear Halas’ a dime. It will be a hard sell. But if it could apply to other projects, easier sell. IL needs economic development tools. - Save Ferris - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 3:30 pm: @HGF That wasn’t my point. Will the various bodies get more under Bears/PILOT than they will under vacant/long develop dead race track? To me, that’s the point of consideration for the village, schools, parks, and state. To me, if the answer is more under “Bears” you do it. If not, don’t. - Jerry - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 3:32 pm: The Chicago Cougars lasted how long (and they plucked Whitey Stapleton from the Blackhawks). The NFL won’t put another team here. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 3:44 pm: ===most Bears fans cannot envision giving Papa Bear Halas’ a dime=== George has been dead a long time. And people loved him. His scions? Not so much. - Lakeview Lou - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 3:55 pm: If LA and NY can have two teams make tons of money so can Chicagoland/Illinois particularly when one of those teams moves 30 miles outside the city turning off half’s it fan base. If the city of Chicago and let’s say a majority black ownership group or a Jeff Bezos wants to buy a second team in Chicago the NFL owners aren’t going to turn down making a boat load of money over hurting the Bear’s franchise feelings. Money talks. Chicago is one of the best expansion opportunities for the NFL. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 4:03 pm: === moves 30 miles outside the city turning off half’s it fan base=== That’s a fact not in evidence, lol The NFL will not alienate a franchisee for a city. It’s not the business model. The NFL likes the “32” number right now, and the Bears moving 30 miles, but staying in the market isn’t anything that is deserving of being forced to split the largest single franchise market. Both NY and LA include larger markets, which include markets that add markets, (New Jersey / San Diego as examples) that Chicago, even with an AFC franchise adds nothing to the pool of revenue. === Jeff Bezos wants to buy a second team in Chicago=== Lemme know when that is happening, also your ramen noodles are boiling over in the dorm room microwave… === Chicago is one of the best expansion opportunities for the NFL.=== Not even close. The NFL wants Europe, Mexico City, and if it couldn’t hurt Buffalo, Canada, but the CFL isn’t keen on that either. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 4:13 pm: Something else to chew on, Chicago getting another franchise… ===“Could Chicago lure a second NFL team if the Bears leave Soldier Field? An expert says it’s not realistic chicago” - BY JACKIE KOSTEK … Ganis further said a current owner wanting to move into a market that already has a team is extremely unlikely — especially when there are several markets seen as both attractive and viable to hosting an NFL team. “Austin, Texas, Austin/San Antonio - that area which is growing by leaps and bounds and has a very strong interest in football – Toronto, Canada; London.” And despite the fact that Chicago once played host to both the Bears and the Cardinals, Ganis said the current economics and business of the NFL — and lackluster appetite from fans — make conditions unlikely for a second round with two teams any time soon.=== The Austin or San Antonio angle, with the “Alamodome” already existing… Jerry Jones already stopped San Antonio *once* when there was a real push for a 3rd franchise in that *state*… arguing market share… for… “America’s Team”… the most valuable NFL franchise, one of the most valuable sports franchises on the planet… You think the Bears won’t stop a second franchise? The NFL will work against the Bears with the city? Hmm. Oh… link… just one of others. https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/chicago/news/could-chicago-lure-a-second-nfl-team-if-the-bears-leave-soldier-field-an-expert-says-its-not-realistic/#app - DuPage Dad - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 4:13 pm: Public subsidies for pro stadiums aren’t necessary. We’re just so used to seeing them that we become trained to think that they are. - Numbers guy - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 4:21 pm: Maybe the bears should just start a gofundme. - Rahm's Parking Meter - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 4:27 pm: Look, the Bears will end up in AH. How that happens, it has to be determined, but in my view, there is no way barring a shocker (which can happen), they don’t move. Kevin Warren’s history foreshadows that. But, as a taxpayer, they can’t expect to get this done on the taxpayer dime and not expect to get pushback. There will be some push and pull here but my bet is something gets done this year. - Lakeview Lou - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 4:32 pm: It would not be a punishment for the Bears leaving, it’s an opportunity. The other owners could care less what the Bears want if they can make a bunch of money. None of those cities you listed in America are a better option than a second team in Chicago. It would be plug and play. The city and state leadership would be on board, a stadium is already in place that would sell out every game, the tv and licensing money would be better then any other city in America as there would be a massive potential fan base from St. Louis to the region. It would be great for the NFL and Illinois to have a second NFL team. The only people that would be against it are the Bears ownership but who cares. They didn’t show Chicago any loyalty so they can rename themselves the Arlington Heights Bears and we can have the Chicago jaguars or pumas or Lincolns. Ha. Anyway I am sure it’s time for your dinner OW. Enjoy the early bird special. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 4:41 pm: === None of those cities you listed in America are a better option than a second team in Chicago.=== That’s an opinion based on no facts, lol, including the overt want of the NFL to be in London, and the discussions to San Antonio or Austin already exist… further… the Raiders going to Vegas, allowing the Bay market only having one franchise and adding Vegas… your opinion isn’t based on any thought(s) of the actual existing discussion === The city and state leadership would be on board, a stadium is already in place that would sell out every game=== You don’t know that, it’s not a given or fact. Plus the owners want to increase the size of the pie (markets) not squeeze the pie (share another market) === The only people that would be against it are the Bears ownership but who cares.=== LOL, speak for yourself or cite a source. === They didn’t show Chicago any loyalty so they can rename themselves the Arlington Heights Bears=== Ok, Unc, Aunt Susie says it’s time for your meds…. My goodness. === Anyway I am sure it’s time for your dinner OW. Enjoy the early bird special.=== You’re a real Grabowski, you make me chuckle… - Politistage - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 4:53 pm: Did no one point out that the bill is under the 102nd GA? This bill can’t even be filed as drafted. Also, who do they think will file this bill? No one, from either party, seems to have an appetite to give any state money to help the Bears move. - Roman - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 5:00 pm: == The Bears don’t have any leverage here. They have nowhere else to go. No reason to give them any tax breaks at all. == Agreed. No pressure on the legislature to do anything. And there’s little pressure on local authorities to offer tax incentives. It’s Arlington Heights — not a contaminated site in a long abandoned industrial wasteland. That parcel of land will develop on its own. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 5:05 pm: ===Did no one point out that the bill is=== It’s a draft. - Enemy of the State - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 6:04 pm: Wrigley, Comiskey and Soldier Field. Three things empty in October. - Blue Dog - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 9:28 pm: tens of thousands of Illinois households struggling to pay utilities,property taxes and put food on the table. crime is a concern. drug over doses. and we worry about multimillionaire shaving a few 100 million off their taxes. we, as a society, are messed up. - No money - Thursday, Jan 26, 23 @ 10:05 pm: When we’ve ended homelessness in Illinois I’ll call my legislators to support some state funding for the Bears. But seriously - we have that and about a hundred other priorities to get to before we subsidize the Bears. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.